Donald Trump: America Desperately Needs…

I do not, for a moment, imagine that you, gentle readers, hang on my every word. I do not think that anyone waits, breathlessly, to read my opinions before forming their own. I do believe that you, like me, read the writings of others because they contain worthwhile insights, well expressed. For that reason, I have, until now, reserved my opinions of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich. I have been watching and listening to gather more information. I am, however, for whatever it is worth to you, ready to discourse a bit on Donald Trump. No doubt, there will be more…

COULTER: Our candidate is mental! Do you realize our candidate is mental? It’s like constantly having to bail out your sixteen-year-old son from prison. Let’s move past last night’s tweet — you know perfectly well what tweet I’m talking about.

This is the worst thing he’s done. I mean the McCain thing– I would say there are only really two, liberals would say “oh, every day”, no, everything else I could probably defend. I could. I think. Most of that is them overreacting… But the McCain thing, that was a dumb joke, it didn’t work. Oh, well. Didn’t kill him. But that tweet last night…

YIANNOPOULOS: And he’s retweeting these images that are, like, ‘I don’t need to make implications, you know, the pictures speak for themselves.’ And a picture of Cruz’s wife and a picture of Melania!

COULTER: That’s exactly the tweet I’m talking about! No, you can’t defend it! This is when we’re bailing out sixteen-year-old out of jail!

And Newt Gingrich on the Hannity Show:

GINGRICH: Tweeting about, or repeating a tweet about Mrs. Cruz is just utterly stupid. It has frankly, weakened everything that Trump ought to be strengthening. It sent a signal to women that is negative, at a time when his numbers with women are already bad. It sent a signal to instability to people who may be beginning to say, ‘maybe I’ve got to get used to it, maybe I’ve got to rely on him, maybe he could be presidential.’ And frankly, it energized Cruz. The interview you just did is as good as I have ever seen Ted Cruz. He was clear, he was vigorous, he was prepared to be combative but at the same time he was getting into big issues and big ideas. My guess is he’s going to do well in Wisconsin. This ought to be a wake-up call for Trump that he had better rethink what seem to be the underlying patterns of his campaign.

And Stephanie Cegielski, who is the former communications director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC:

He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.

The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump.

And if you are one of the disaffected voters — one of the silent majority like me — who wanted a candidate who could be your voice, I want to speak directly to you as one of his biggest advocates and supporters.

He is not that voice. He is not your voice. He is only Trump’s voice.

Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many ‘pieces of ass.’ He is, at heart, a self-preservationist.

And Geraghty:

Donald Trump didn’t suddenly change in the past few days, weeks or months. He’s the same guy he always was, the same guy that most of us in the conservative movement and GOP have been staunchly opposing for the past year. He didn’t abruptly become reckless, obnoxious, ill-informed, erratic, hot-tempered, pathologically dishonest, narcissistic, crude and catastrophically unqualified for the presidency overnight. He’s always been that guy, and you denied it and ignored it and hand-waved it away and made excuses every step of the way because you were convinced that you were so much smarter than the rest of us.

Americans are a bit schizophrenic about the wealthy. We often regard the hereditary rich with faint suspicion, and shake our heads at their snobbishness, usually with some justification. We tend to be more accepting of the self-made rich–that’s the American, Horatio Alger story, after all–and Trump is, to at least some degree, self-made, or perhaps more accurately, self-promoted.

We would, however, like the very rich to be virtuous. To whom much is given, much is expected. We would like them to be wise and kind people with unique insights, a kind of wonderful grandfather that would gladly sit down with one of the little people, really listen to them, and give them invaluable advice that could change their fortunes and lives. We want them to think of those, as Dickens wrote, as fellow travelers on the road to the grave. Where Donald Trump is involved, we have Trump University. For genuine human virtue, we’re thinking much more of Sam Walton who chose to drive a favorite old pickup truck, or perhaps the Koch Brothers. The fact that progressives hate them with an insane, vein-popping, drooling intensity speaks directly to the Koch’s virtue, and the relatively few honest media accounts seem to suggest they are truly kind and wise people, which surely helps to account for their success.

Then there is Donald Trump. In at least one respect, Trump very much resembles Bill Clinton. For a time, an excessively long and destructive time, Americans tended to think of Clinton as a “loveable rogue,” a guy scoring with innumerable women, flaunting power and relative wealth, spitting in the face of authority, and getting away with it. He was shade-wearing, cigar smoking (and other things), saxophone-playing Bubba, the slightly shady but more or less likeable guy everyone knew in high school.

Eventually, most Americans came to see Clinton for the horribly flawed narcissist he is, and no longer see such things as his many rides on the “Lolita Express” as charming. Bill Clinton badly damaged our national security, our faith in government, our self-image, and the rule of law. Stealing many of the furnishings of the White House on the way out the door, and the wreckage of the American people’s property left behind by his adolescent staffers, began the process of understanding just who and what Bill Clinton is.

Perhaps, with his unprovoked, boorish and ugly attacks on Ted Cruz’s wife, that process has begun for our understanding of Donald Trump.

After eight long, enervating years of Barack Obama, America desperately needs the kind of man about which the Founders wrote. We need a moral man, an honorable man who believes in America, and foremost, in the framework of limited government established by far wiser men than virtually all in politics in 2016. We need a man who by philosophy and disposition is capable of saying “No. We can’t do that. It doesn’t matter how nice it would be; the Constitution doesn’t allow it. We just don’t have that power.” We need a man who understands the decorum and dignity required of the occupant of the Oval Office. We need a man who is wise in historical understanding, who has read the Constitution—repeatedly—and who is willing to fight—and politically die if necessary—for any and every part of it, because he has read the Constitution, and because he understands that without it, America is, as Barack Obama believes, nothing special.

We need an honest man, a humble man, a strong but self-effacing man. We need a courageous man, and a man willing to be wrong, and willing to accept blame when he is.

We need a man capable of cleaning out the racist, statist thugs populating the DOJ, IRS, EPA and innumerable other federal agencies, and forcing the federal bureaucracy within the limits of its legitimate—and small—authority.

We need a man capable of recognizing and dealing ruthlessly with our enemies, and of fully supporting our allies. The nations of the world, particularly our allies, know that under Barack Obama, America is far less trustworthy and more dangerous—to them—than their worst enemies. Our allies mistrust and fear us, and our enemies laugh at, ignore, even threaten us. Our next President must embody the Marine ethic: Every nation must know, without any room for doubt, that there is no better friend than America, and no worse enemy.

We need a President that will protect, above all else, American sovereignty and lives, who understands that American citizenship is a pearl of great price.

We need a President that understands that without the rule of law, America is nothing more than a tin-pot banana republic with a high standard of living—for now.

Donald Trump is none of these things. He is easily as narcissistic as Barack Obama, though he is not a confirmed communist or Islamist. Trump is very much a crony, corrupt, capitalist, which requires the very opposite of what we so desperately need: he cares little or nothing for the rule of law. For men like Trump, the rule of law is whatever, at the moment, enriches them.

Trump can be, certainly, crude, nasty, vulgar, abusive, thuggish, all of the least lovely qualities of Barack Obama. Many are dismayed that Mr. Obama, upon taking office, began to vacation and party with the wild abandon of those suddenly wealthy on the money of others without having worked a day to earn it. The money wasted on the lavish, kingly vacations taken by Obama and his family will surely run into the tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions, perhaps more, if a full accounting is ever made. This is the existence Trump expects; it’s his lifestyle.

Trump doesn’t say what he means and mean what he says. His rhetoric is the fast-paced patter of the hustler, operative for only as long as it distracts or dazzles his marks. He has no fundamental principles, just whatever works for him at the moment. He can’t be said to be a flip-flopper; his positions aren’t sufficiently firm to survive the flip.

Trump is like Obama too in that he knows so little about so much, and like Obama, his ego will keep him from learning what is necessary. Obama infamously bragged that he is much smarter and more capable than his advisors. Trump has done the same. Both are drastically, dangerously wrong.

The most recent, and telling example occurred at a Town Hall where Chris Matthews cornered Trump by asking if he believed, if abortion were illegal, there should be punishment for women? That is an unimaginative question that any competent politician, anyone that has spent any real time thinking about the issue, could have easily fielded, but Trump foolishly said that women–women getting abortions–would have to be punished. Where abortion is concerned, even most of the pro-life movement agrees with abortion advocates, if little else, that women should face no criminal penalties. It was an egregious unforced error, made all the more damaging by polls that show upward of 70% of women against Trump.

Trump is no racist, but under a Trump presidency, there would be little or no work toward repairing the racist damage done by Barack Obama. Trump simply wouldn’t see it as a priority.

Most distressing is that Trump has shown no evidence of knowing anything about the Constitution. He’s one of those folks answering questions about our government on the street for a variety show segment, the kind of person about whose cluelessness we laugh. He has not thought deeply about the issues of government, of life, about what is necessary for Americans not to thrive, but after the history-free era of Barack Obama, to survive. He has no solid philosophical grounding, no foundation in America’s common, secular faith, hence, no belief in it.

Geraghty again:

Technically we’re supposed to welcome previous Trump fans-turned-foes with open arms. But barring some miraculous comeback by Ted Cruz, the Trump campaign will have cost the Republican Party the presidency after eight years of Obama, and perhaps the Senate and even the House – and Scalia’s replacement on the Court as well. Years of effort spent attempting to dispel the accusations of inherent Republican misogyny, xenophobia, hypocrisy, ignorance and blind rage have been undone by Trump’s campaign. And every Trump advocate in front of a camera had a hand in this.

We’re not just gonna hug it out.

America desperately needs not just an adult, but an American, dedicated to the Constitution and to the rule of law as President. It is by no means a certainty that even such a person can undo the damage done by Obama in a mere eight years. America stands on the edge of the abyss, looking in. Financial disaster, unending racial strife, civil war, unrestrained terrorism, and worse are staring back.

Rather than working to restore America and all that entails, Donald Trump will almost certainly work to game and manage the continuing destruction, making
deals, playing the media, and stroking his own ego.

40 thoughts on “Donald Trump: America Desperately Needs…”

The straight answer is: Ted Cruz. From what Mike McDaniel wrote, he describes no other candidate besides Trump than Ted Cruz. I hope you also see that there are only two Republican candidates, no more than that. The others are clearly hanging on for their own purposes (obviously planning on giving their delegates at the convention -which at this point appears to be inevitably “brokered”). BTW: Mike’s comments are identical to mine – the only choice is Ted Cruz, any other will do serious harm.

@stobberdobber: Sorry. You didn’t specify to whom you addressed your question on this open forum. No one reading posts on open forums knows the persons who may also be posting, reading and responding. I hope you don’t find this response overwhelming. Best wishes.

I agree with you, Mike, point-for-point on Trump, Obama and of course about the only remaining candidate which fits your description of the right candidate: Senator Ted Cruz. It’s worth noting that Trump uses classic salesman talk every time he says anything – all “sizzle” and no steak. He also is amazingly skilled at controlling his speech level to the 4th grade reading level (when you look at transcripts of his speeches and Trump quotes). The others all use vocabulary and sentence structure closer to 10th or even 11th grade. This works to Trump’s advantage because his target audience is also typical of “customers” who’re too eager to buy. Desperate to buy and they buy Trump and only Trump.

Cruz, at first, was swamped and obscured during the debates by Trump’s camera and mic hogging which he did without being restrained or censured by the so-called moderators in every debate. All the other candidates were similarly obscured but Cruz, after careful analysis, was the most important of all the candidates who deserved to have the exposure.

I once worked on a political party platform committee: economics. That was long ago but it was while serving that I realized that our economic system would not be possible without our Constitution and Bill of Rights to act as the foundation for our economic system. I also know that today few people know that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is all we have, our country and our way of life absolutely depends on having this document. Ted Cruz is the only candidate (and one of the few in politics) who shows he understands the importance of constitutional government restrained by a bill of rights.

So many people complain about unresponsive politicians but no one seems to realize that, serious players come to the table with serious money. Put your money where your mouth is. Back the politicians who’re the most honest and you’ll help drive out the bad money and bad politicians. At the beginning of this year I decided to make monthly donation to the NRA Political Victory Fund. As of last month, I began making donations to Ted Cruz’s campaign.

Trump and Sanders are both running on Hope & Change (which, for Sanders, means running against his own party, although he stops short of criticizing Obama specifically). With Trump fans, though, I don’t get the impression of the kind of blind loyalty that Obama Zombies have. Maybe it’s partly because valid criticism of Trump can’t be dismissed with accusations of racism. Anyway, my impression of Trump supporters is an attitude of, “Yeah, I know he’s an SOB, but maybe that’s what we need: no more Mr. Nice Guy.”

Traditionally, the GOP has nominated the moderate candidate with broad-based appeal. And they have lost four out of the past seven presidential elections. Five, really, considering that Bush won on electoral votes, not popular votes, in 2000.

Trump has the advantage of everyone already knowing that he’s a scumbag. PCNN and MSDNC can’t shock you by digging up dirt about his divorces, or questionable business deals, or whatever. Most Republican candidates try to look like the father in a 1950’s TV sitcom, and it’s easy for the MSM to burst that bubble. (Look! Rubio got four traffic tickets in eighteen years!!! Gasp! The horror of it all! Ward Cleaver never got into trouble like that!)

Dear Tom: I think you’ve summed it up very well. You may also agree: the overall picture shows lack of seriousness, lack of engagement, and maybe most of all lack of experience with how the political system works.

We vary only in details: I remember how delighted and energized people were about “Dubya” because he was so “folksy” and unsophisticated in speech he was. “unsophisticated” became Bushisms – even his critics had fun with how Bush butchered standard english (and standard logic). Trump has a similar appeal and I believe that’s why his supporters support him so fiercely – with the same name calling in place of serious answers. But you’re still right, Trump gets in the face of propriety and represents the resentment many people feel toward serious minded “Establishment” people. They love him for it.

The other unmentioned thing I feel compelled to bring up again: Cruz is the only one who has consistently defended the Constitution. Hillary is literally committed to eliminating the 2nd Amendment. We have 100 million gun owners but few of them seem aware of what will happen if we let anyone but Cruz into the general election and into the White House. That single demographic is the largest one by far but it’s almost invisible (not counting the 5% NRA members which Hillary is sworn to destroy).

That’s pretty much what I see. The trouble is, it openly suggests that the problem has arisen because of people’s faulty thinking and perception. We know this: people will NOT agree that they are incapable of making good judgements and decisions.

So we’re pretty much sunk. Trump will be the likely candidate for the Republicans. And even though it’s likely Hillary will own him in the first weeks of the actual campaign, those same people who insisted Trump is the Messiah will be making up reasons for why Trump failed that don’t include the statement, “I was wrong.” because such people are “never wrong.” Hah!

We know this: people will NOT agree that they are incapable of making good judgements and decisions.

On both sides.

Recall, the entire NeverTrump crowd started out with what a bad politician Trump was, about how Trump would never persuade anyone, Trump didn’t have the stamina, Trump would make a ton of gaffes and bomb out, all of this. The NeverTrump crowd fundamentally failed to assess Trump realistically, and by extension, half of the Republican base.

This is a major, major political failure by the political class. This is a major failure — the kind that lost the party the last two presidential elections.

All of which begs the question, if their judgment was so wrong about every single aspect of the Trump campaign so far, why in the world should we trust their judgment about the general election? They are, so far, a complete and total failure and have been utterly defeated by Trump.

Trump isn’t destroying the party. Half of the party supports him, and he is the likely nominee. That is how it is supposed to work. What is destroying the party is the nattering naboobs who preach party unity when they are getting what they want, and then suddenly find that they can’t vote for the party they allegedly support — until they find a candidate that makes them “feel uneasy” and then decide that they can’t vote for the party.

The traitor wing needs to put their big boy pants on, admit that they got beat by a better politician, and get in line behind the nominee.

RE: “The NeverTrump crowd fundamentally failed to assess Trump realistically, and by extension, half of the Republican base” Realistically assessed, Trump began by successfully drowning out all other candidates and then picked them off one by one, starting with Jeb (most heavily financed by the inner circle Republicans).

Why, if he is so legitimate, did he choose to manipulate the debates so that only his repetitious narrative was heard?? That’s what triggered my outer circle of alarms – his illegitimacy. He was/is smart enough to know how dependent the news media (including Fox) is on sensationalism. So he’s been carefully sensational in exactly the same way P.T. Barnum was. The media on both sides love Trump: he’s bringing them all tons of revenue because he brings tons of attention: mostly of the gawker type. “Wow, look at that traffic accident, I bet there must be a dozen people killed, look at the pile of body bags waiting to be filled! Yay! “

Part Deux: “neverTrump crowd”- it’s always a mistake to carelessly clump people you disagree with in disparaging fashion. You’d probably do the same with the “NeverCyanide crowd.”

RE: “This is a major, major political failure by the political class. This is a major failure — the kind that lost the party the last two presidential elections.” — On this WE ARE VERY CLOSE. My version: it’s TWO COMPETING IDEOLOGIES WHICH ARE BOTH FLAWED AND TOXIC which created this situation. I’ve been warning my “Republican” friends for years: DO NOT TRUST THE REPUBLICANS any more than you trust THE DEMOCRATS. Ideologies are the tools used by the political class (as you call them).

Corollary: It was the RNC which betrayed the party. They had NO REASON to admit Trump in the first place! Rience Preibus is an idiot / incompetent. They apparently thought they had their firewall at the (inevitably) contested convention but that was a dicey idea. Simple lack of foresight (the job of true leaders: have some vision of what can happen). The RNC never foresaw Trump would get past the debates – but Trump was massively successful at camera hogging. Then they thought Trump would never get past the primaries: even though they let him have center stage FOR WEEKS before the primaries. God Awful Stupid.

Conclusive in my opinion: given that Trump has proven ability to manipulate and set up situations where he wins-wins-wins: it’s still impossible to believe he can do the same as president. He won’t have his intimidating rally crowds close at hand and he certainly won’t do well with our international allies AND enemies (the Russians love Trump- he’s the American Patsy they’ve been waiting for since 1947).

For that matter: It looks like he’ll be handled by Hillary and her decades-deep supporters with little more than a ripple in the political fabric. Trump is too likely to become an unfortunate footnote in “Republican History.”

Part Deux: “neverTrump crowd”- it’s always a mistake to carelessly clump people you disagree with in disparaging fashion. You’d probably do the same with the “NeverCyanide crowd.”

NeverTrump is what they are calling themselves. If they want another (descriptive) nomenclature I’ll be fine to use it. I’m very cognitive that party unity needs to be the ultimate goal (and the propensity of the NeverTrump faction to refer to Trump supporters as stupid, ignorant, fascist, gullible, etc is a constant reminder.)

I have to say that’s a selective response: evading the original point about people’s refusal to accept any and all criticisms of their judgment and decision-making which IS the question originally raised about Trump Supporters. You also omit any mention of the vicious gutter language used by Trump Supporters ALL THE TIME.

Since Trump himself introduced this “method” of dealing with critics and serious rivals (“Lying Ted” is his CONSTANT bulls*t slander) I can only conclude you’re just being a very good Trump student.

With scores of examples over the last two months, the consistent pattern for Trump supporters has been: evasion, omission, false accusations, slander, false justifications, excuses and so on. Even by the most objective, dispassionate standard: Trump is a completely unknown, untried “product.” His assertive statements about this and that not withstanding. Sorry, but I’m completely unmoved by your very similar responses to my posts.

I have to say that’s a selective response: evading the original point about people’s refusal to accept any and all criticisms of their judgment and decision-making which IS the question originally raised about Trump Supporters.

I can answer for what I’ve written. I can’t and won’t answer for around 7 million voter’s opinions and actions.

It’s interesting that you think that I can’t have an objective opinion of Trump beyond being a supporter of his.

Trump isn’t a narcissist. He has very few of the markers for NPD. There’s a difference between punching back (which Trump seems to do in a calculated way) and obsessing over every perceived injury. Obama obsesses over every perceived slight. You see that over and over from him punching down from the White House. Trump, at worst, is guilty of using Megyn Kelly (a liberal reporter for a news agency) as a pawn in his fight with Rupert Murdoch.

Kelly was a clown who asked a buffoonish question, and she earned what she got. Either she’s an adult professional, or she’s a shirking flower who needs to be protected. If she’s a shirking flower, she needs to be replaced with a real reporter. Her refusal to recuse herself from further debates in particular in an unexcusable breach of journalistic ethics — she made the story about herself rather than the candidates.

To wrap up Trump as a narcissist — people have been making fun of his hair for 20 years. There is no way a narcissist would be able to stand that without a mental breakdown. He would have long ago tried another hairstyle if he was actually a narcissist, to get the joked to stop. He hasn’t, because all the “ego” stuff is posturing in a media persona that benefits him in negotiation.

Here is a list of narcissistic traits (there are various lists, but this list seems largely common across most):

–Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
–Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
–Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
–Requires excessive admiration
–Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
–Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
–Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
–Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
–Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
(ref: psychcentral.com)

Going down your list, Trump doesn’t fit for criteria 1 (he actually has notable achievements), 2 (they aren’t fantasies), 3 (he doesn’t seem to have any problem connecting with individual voters, if you want to see this criterion, look at Hillary), 4 is a maybe, 5 is a no, 6 is a maybe, 7 is a no (and a huge no for NPD), 8 is a probably not, and 9 is a probably not, especially if the behind-the-scenes account are credible, which they most certainly are.

(FWIW, Trump recently changed his hairstyle, almost certainly on the advice of his campaign.)

I tend to agree but I’ve seen others claim this list doesn’t apply to Trump. People are virtually unanimous in saying this is the most unusual, unsettled and some say disturbing election season ever seen. That alone is worth looking at more closely. The main reason for this is the presence of Donald Trump.

Furthermore, Trump has obviously created a very divisive atmosphere among supposedly united Republicans. And who initiated the divisiveness? Indisputably, Trump did. Ordinarily no one would dare hurl insults and slurs and vieled threats at other candidates, news media figures, the RNC itself. And therein lies the biggest question of all: Why did the RNC accept Trump’s membership at all?

I agree but others don’t. There’s still more to look at though. One of the ‘minor items” is that Trump is a man of great accomplishments. But those accomplishments are those of a NYC real estate dealer. Nothing he has is actually a usable presidential skill. He claims he’s a great deal maker but he won’t be making the same deals and the environment presidents work in is millions of miles from where Trump peddles real estate.

Additionally, those that say Trump doesn’t demand separate consideration and standards most advantageous to him are either in denial or haven’t paid any attention to his openly displayed sense of entitlement. He’s so blatant about it that he even traps himself in his own contradictions: one day he’s blasting about “rigged system” and the next day he’s basking in glory from the benefits of THE SAME “RIGGED” SYSTEM. (Plus no one in the last 150 years has objected to the hybrid candidate selection process which Trump says is a pure vote-counting election).

Trump rode out the Viet Nam war on a student deferment. Since when do Republicans accept a wartime draft dodger (’64 to ’68)? Trump’s lovely wife can barely speak English – what will that be like when she’s First Lady?

Trump shows some ability to adopt different personas but how will that work when he’s “wheeling and dealing” as president? Will it fool any foreign government when they see him mashing and bashing one day and acting “presidential” the next day?

Most important of all: Is the question we all should be demanding the RNC answer: Why didn’t the RNC reject Trump’s membership to begin with?! He’s run for president under two different party banners and lost twice. He was last a Democrat and now he shows up as a “Republican” candidate?! There’s never been any limit on the RNC or DNC when it comes to accepting or rejecting memberships. Lets remember this item: the news media ignores this obvious question.

Im sure others can add to this list. Trump may be a narcissist, an egoist, an ego maniac -but he’s definitely something that makes many people feel uneasy.

Considering how corrupt and dysfunctional the Republican party has become. Considering all efforts toward reform have produced nil. Considering that today’s Republican party is far to the left of JFK’s Democrat party. Considering the shape the Republic is in, due in a great part, to the fact that we actually have a one party system that carries two banners, both supporting graft and lining their own pockets with absolutely no regards for the nation or its citizens.

Perhaps Trump is exactly the right man at the right time seeking the right job of tearing down a decaying odorous edifice hence allowing us to rebuild it using the original blueprint, the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks for your comment and welcome to SMM. My primary concern with your final point is that I have seen no evidence that Mr. Trump has even a passing familiarity with the Constitution, or that he would allow it to limit him in any way. The Democrat and Socialist in the race certainly won’t.

Heidi Cruz—of Goldman Sachs (and recipient of an undeclared, unsecured loan from them), Morgan, GWB Admin, Council on Foreign Relations—is entirely fair game. She wrote a section in the CFR report on how to integrate Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a North American Union. Needs more scrutiny!

She wrote a paragraph at the end of the report, a paragraph that was nationalist, not internationalist in its import.We had someone at our Town Hall meetup, a few years ago, who would always stand up and ask State-of-Texas-oriented speakers about how to block various UN agenda. They were always confused when anyone explained that Texas was not a member of the UN. The concerns of national sovereignty are valid, but the idea that either of the Cruzes is an internationalist is just weird. I have even seen attempts to link Mrs. Cruz to David Koresh, because the Branch Davidians were a break-off from the Seventh Day Adventists, and Mrs. Cruz was raised in that faith.As the original piece stated, DT makes arguments pitched pretty clearly at a fourth grade reading level. Just a little bit deeper examination of the issues makes many of these claims look profoundly silly. It is also noteworthy that Obama, and Democrats in general,throw out such wild distractions, while traditionally, Republicans made deeper, more reasoned arguments, which, indeed, the fourth grader found boring. Please note, I am not saying that Gainny is a fourth grader. Rather, I am saying that the Trump campaign and its spokesmen use this type of ‘argument,” which is not an argument, nor is it evidence that deeper thinkers ought to give much credence.

Hiedi Cruz is not a prospective candidate for the Republican nomination. Where’s the evidence she’s had any significant influence on her husband, Ted Cruz? Cruz’s campaign since 2011 shows Goldman Sachs has contributed $69,000 over that period. But Cruz’s total campaign contributions amount to over $66 million. Your argument is “thin.” And it’s only suggestive (slyly so), not determinate nor the basis for firm assertions. Trump himself admits to contributing large sums to BOTH Democrats and Republicans: if true those cancel each other out UNLESS they were given to INFLUENCE ALL POLITICIANS. Which is exactly what makes sense: Trump’s “projects” happen in all districts which are distributed under Democrat and Republican political control. He’s controlling the controllers – hardly a character endorsement for the “deal maker.”

Unfortunately ,I don’t think it matters , the media has jumped on the Clinton train and it is careening down the tracks.
The FBI investigation ,I fear will lay the blame on organization dysfunction and recommend blah blah blah.
At best we may have the usual Clinton scenario ( like Whitewater) where a few sacrificial lambs ( Jacob Sullivan ,Patrick Kennedy get a slap on the wrist misdemeanors.

So… Who better than Trump? Trump has a personal legacy already… Yet he is willing to abandon his personal success to “hitch his wagon” to the current sorry state of “We the People” for his final legacy; why? He already has more, and accomplished more, than most people could ever dream of so maybe he is playing a better game than we can imagine. All I can say is, despite not liking what I see in Trump, I feel compelled to support him because it is quite evident the “establishment” fears him even more than I do and this suggests, that of all people, he may be the one most capable of steering this country back to the path our founders envisioned. “We, the people” have already lost most everything and have nothing more to lose with Trump because our other options only mean more of the same. So what if Trump turns out to be another Obama? I reiterate… We have we to lose?

It’s good that we have commenters here making a case for Trump. But I don’t think the “pro”items are anything more than wish fulfillment.

1. He’s not a narcissist: a proper diagnosis isn’t available of course but when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. In addition there’ve been several articles written long before Trump’s current move to notoriety which were written by people with credentials which all say he is a narcissist. Going all the way back to college years: Trump has acted only to his own benefit: 1964-68, he was a wartime draft dodger riding the college tuition payments made by his father. He could have gone ROTC or gone into the defense industry. Nope – just a degree in business from Wharton.

2. He’s a genuine, generous-hearted billionaire who, like Bill Gates, just wants to give back to the country that made him rich: Eh, then why hasn’t Gates done this himself or backed someone who would “make America great again?” You could say the same about any billionaire but it’s been only Trump saying he can do that.
It’s a nice myth and, yes, it does have hitlerian overtones.

3. He’s going to gain control of the Establishment and resolve our feeling of helplessness: The more we hear this constant drumbeat, the harder it is to believe in it. It’s obviously true that he caught the RNC and Republican insiders flat-footed. Their vulnerabilities have been obvious since they put up G.W. Bush as a candidate. To me, that just means Trump, bolstered by his own status as a billionaire insider, decided to take advantage of those vulnerabilities AND the discontent among the lower strata because he’s a guy who loves the grandstand play which garners the most attention for himself.

3.b Subtext: Trump’s appeal to the lower strata (aka, “unfairly disadvantaged”) is purely altruistic. That’s a Hillary Clinton Playbook item. And it is highly effective but it’s still an exploitive fiction narrative. The “unfairly disadvantaged” appear to be the people who believe that in their own minds but their actual past indicates a complete lack of trying to work within and use the System themselves. That’s the option which others prove to be correct every day, at all levels. They’ve been non-doers all their lives and Trump’s fiction is the perfect cover for their past laxity.

4. Trump hasn’t really attacked or insulted anyone. Sorry – but here the obvious is obvious as it can be. His performance during the debates consisted almost 100% of attacking and insulting everyone in the room. It’s an attention-getting ploy that he was allowed to get away with – just like he was allowed to run overtime at center stage while drowning out all the other candidates. The host media couldn’t help themselves: their TV ratings skyrocketed, especially compared to past debates. So of course they let Trump break the rules when they should have turned his mic off and escorted him offstage.

5. Finally: Trump Train is fait accompli. Hey, wait a minute: how come Cruz has gained traction steadily thanks to his finally-available exposure away from Trump-generated distractions? Trump has the lead in delegate count but it’s entirely due to his hogging the stage for weeks. Besides: the long-standing convention rules in both parties belie the myth that Trump has a solid hold in his own candidates. He doesn’t – it’s that simple. Many of “his” delegates are horror-struck to find themselves in Trump’s Collection Bowl. They’ll bolt at the first opportunity.

Your attempt to refute “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…” fails when you use an obviously constructed story about people mistaking your niece for a duck. If you want to attack people’s reliance on their own senses to detect reality, I’m sure you’re going to fail.

“Narcissists are mentally ill…” well, yes they are. But I haven’t made a professional diagnosis of Trump because I’m not a professional, I’ve only pointed out the similarities and let people draw their own conclusions. It’s notable that you repeat your attempt to refute something I did not say. Stretch much? Maybe a little too much loyalty to Trump? Maybe a little ideological blindness?

I think you’ve been given ample time and room to make a coherent case for Trump being the Republican candidate. From my corner, it looks like you’ve wasted a lot of it and are now backing yourself into a corner you found all by yourself.

Your attempt to refute “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…” fails when you use an obviously constructed story about people mistaking your niece for a duck. If you want to attack people’s reliance on their own senses to detect reality, I’m sure you’re going to fail.

I’m not interested in convincing you. I’m convincing the other readers who might be mislead by your hysteria. And yes, I am comfortable calling it hysteria at this point.

“Narcissists are mentally ill…” well, yes they are. But I haven’t made a professional diagnosis of Trump because I’m not a professional, I’ve only pointed out the similarities and let people draw their own conclusions. It’s notable that you repeat your attempt to refute something I did not say. Stretch much? Maybe a little too much loyalty to Trump? Maybe a little ideological blindness?

You called Trump a narcissist, over and over, and insistently. Narcissism is a term with a very specific denotation, and is a mental illness. It does not apply to Trump, and any objective assessment shows that clearly. Your assessment is not objective, and your personal attacks on my motivation won’t get you there.

Again, it’s clear that when you say “narcissist” you really mean “insufficiently humble”, which is a curious vice to knock a presidential candidate for.

I think you’ve been given ample time and room to make a coherent case for Trump being the Republican candidate. From my corner, it looks like you’ve wasted a lot of it and are now backing yourself into a corner you found all by yourself.

My case for Trump as the candidate is pretty simple and irrefutable — he has the most votes, and he will almost certainly have sufficient votes to take the nomination outright barring rule-change shenanigans. It’s that simple.

As for whether or not Trump should be the nominee, I’ve always supported Cruz, but I never considered my support of him to be a party suicide pact.

“I’m not interested in convincing you. I’m convincing the other readers who might be mislead by your hysteria. And yes, I am comfortable calling it hysteria at this point.” — Hmm, I wasn’t interested in divesting you of your all-out fanboy support of Trump either. BTW- you’re way to late to try to fool people into thinking you actually support Cruz. Neither does your repeat attempt at falsely claiming I said Trump is a narcissist work when you ‘conveniently forgot’ I specifically said I was not diagnosing Trump.

The repetition of false charges is a marker common to all true Trump fanboys, by the way. It’s been a pleasure outing you. Have a great life as a fanboy.

RE: ““We, the people” have already lost most everything and have nothing more to lose with Trump…” Oh no! If you’re serious it means you’re using a borrowed (or library) computer to post here. You haven’t lost “everything” by any means. Not having much luck getting what you want from “the Establishment” might just mean you want / expect the wrong things. Trump targets exactly that audience: the people who feel real frustration and find his reason for it to be too convenient to pass up. Trump better fits the image of an opportunist who has talent as a public speaker: he IS NOT HITLER but Hitler did use the post war inflation /depression in Germany as his path to (finally) winning an election (after failing several times under the Nazi banner). Hitler’s talent for public speaking (and spectacle) is often mentioned by historians. Trump IS NOT HITLER but the parallels are there when it comes to personal ability and personal history.

First the Ann Coulter tweet. You do realize that since that tweet Ann has made dozens of tweets praising Trump? You also realize that her criticism went more to his political ineptness rather than any character issues displayed by that retweet?

As for the retweet. I find it hard to believe that you would start a criticism of Trump with a specific retweet of an ugly picture of Hillary Heidi Cruz, when you put an ugly picture of Trump in front of the article.

In fact you had a picture of Michelle O that I wanted to ask you take down. Not because i thought it was fair, but because it wigged me out each time I scrolled past it. Pot kettle.

Using ugly pictures of opponents is de rigour in politics. Get over it.

Last we checked, Heidi Cruz is not Donald Trump’s opponent, and the ugly picture that Trump retweeted of her came on the heels of him making threats that he was going to “spill the beans” on Mrs. Cruz in retaliation for a Facebook ad that Trump knows Cruz had nothing to do with, Trump’s protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Coulter is herself inept, as her continual push of Romney and Christie in recent election cycles has made quite clear. That she “saw the light” in part about the retweet but didn’t fully grasp how idiotic her candidate really is doesn’t erase the fact that she at least recognized how childish the retweet was.

Trump
pro police -check
pro sensible surveillance state – check
anti social justice warriors and black lives matter – check
pro economic nationalism – check
pro jobs for americans and not foreigners – check
pro immigration control and building a wall – check
Sensible and realist foreign policy – he has said some positive things, but overall may not be trustworthy here. We don’t know what we would get and could be even more dangerous than neocon hawks.

Trump is probably a losing cause against Hillary because he has had too many gaffes and has alienated too many people. But I agree with him a hell of a lot more than the bloated vile Republican party.

Trump clearly has some narcissitic qualities, but how many powerful men do not? Just where he is in the humble, narcissist, sociopath spectrum I do not know. He also talks off the cuff and rarely sounds scripted. That can be good and bad.

I don’t doubt that Trump has some kind of intelligence but what bothers me is that he uses his intelligence mainly to disrupt the process which, ordinarily, would have led to a Ted Cruz nomination. I’m convinced that Cruz’s obvious intelligence is largely devoted to the Constitution. I don’t think it’s illogical to conclude that, at least potentially, Cruz could fully restore the power of the Constitution. And thereby: straighten out both parties and the U.S. government including the office of the president and the Congress (which is why so many members of Congress despise him). So, IMO, Cruz is the real reformer and Trump is the fake reformer.

I should explain that I’m an independent and have little liking for either party. The ease with which Trump rolled the RNC over is only indicative of the ineptness which both the Republicans and Democrats are guilty of.

One other comparison: Trump, as yet, has given no coherent statement about the economy or the IRS. Cruz on the other hand has published a well explained position statement in which he shows how adopting a flat rate income tax would help the economy and ensure more people paid the same percentage of income- thus providing a more stable revenue flow for legitimate government functions. Trump: “We’re going to make America great again.” – which I find faintly insulting.